The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

1. Summary of grounds for appeal;

A. The Defendant: (a) concluded a contract with the victim C (hereinafter “victim Company”); and (b) produced the original unit to be supplied; and (c) provided the samples of the completed unit to the victim Company.

The defendant did not receive a definite answer from the victim company to load its original part while he produced the original part of the order, and the defendant left Vietnam on February 3, 2017, and eventually did not supply the original part to the victim company.

The judgment of the court below which found the defendant guilty of the facts charged in this case is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principle.

B. The lower court’s sentence of unreasonable sentencing (two years of suspended execution in October, and two-four hours of community service order) is too unreasonable.

2. Determination

A. In the lower court’s judgment on the assertion of mistake of facts, the Defendant argued to the same effect as the grounds for appeal in this part, and the lower court, based on the circumstances stated in its reasoning, determined that the Defendant, as if he could deliver the original group contracted to the victim company, fraudulently acquired the original amount by receiving the original amount from the victim.

If the above judgment of the court below is examined closely in light of the records, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error of misunderstanding of facts as alleged by the defendant, and the defendant's allegation of mistake in this part

B. As to the assertion of unfair sentencing, the Defendant’s sole agreement with the victim company on the assertion of unfair sentencing, and the fact that there was no record of punishment for the fraud crime is favorable to the Defendant.

However, the crime of this case is punishable by the court below in full view of other reasons for sentencing as shown in the arguments and records of this case, including the fact that the crime of this case was committed by deceiving the victim company even though the defendant did not have an intention or ability to supply the original body, and the crime of this case is not appropriate to be committed by deceiving the victim company, and the amount of defraudation